JayhawkPhil (anonymous) says...

Another excellent column by Keegan. He is by far the best sports columnist I've read in the Lawrence paper in the last 50 years. Some people don't like him because he gives a real objective view of KU sports performances. To those homies who don't like him I evoke that movie line by Jack Nicholson, "You can't handle the truth".
That being said, all KU fans had to be thrilled with the way KU played last night. Our loss to Tech doesn't look so bad now that they also beat A&M. Hopefully we can keep it up.

January 25, 2007 at 7:08 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

okjhok (anonymous) says...

I concur, although I couldn't see the game since it was blacked out in OK.

January 25, 2007 at 8:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

JerkStore (anonymous) says...

Keegan isn't one-tenth the writer that Woodling is/was or Bedore for that matter. Kansas plays better when Wright does? Give the guy a Pulitzer!

Good thing he has unrestricted access to come up with gems like this.

January 25, 2007 at 9:04 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jross1972 (Joe Ross) says...

Here's the slap of reality to those that criticize these articles:

You couldn't write a decent one if your life depended on it. SORRY! But it's the truth. Sure we get on here and act like we know what we're talking about. The fact of the matter is many of us (and I include myself) don't have the basketball knowledge of the game in and out to really evaluate. Secondly, most of you would be fired for writing irrelevant articles or ones that are not at all interesting. I'm sure after a few weeks some of your columns would be repetitive and redundant (did anyone catch the pun?). Hell, some of you even lack the grammar skills to put a coherant article together.

JerkStore, prove me wrong. I challenge you to write an "article" and post it here and let us all critique it. If anyone else has problems with the columns by Keegan, Bedore, Mayer, et. al., you do the same thing. It should be quite easy winning over a lay crowd since we are not all journalists, right? So here's your opportunity to prove you're better than the LJW's writers! Heck. I'll even try to put together a petition to make you a featured columnist once a week if the readers here judge you worthy of your salt.

Now, I happen to think that the forum that the LJW provides to its readers happens to be the best in the Big XII. For those of you that have visited other online sites for opposing conference foes, you will agree with me readily that this is in fact the case. These guys give us bones to chew on whether they are right or not. And that "something to consider" which they give to us is a whole lot more interesting than the alternative: nothing to read about or a substandard group forum akin to other schools.

So...where are the submissions?

January 25, 2007 at 10:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

CMKUbLu304 (anonymous) says...

well....its in the stats....

but yes, Tech is underrated, as far as I'm concerned. You've gotta be at least half decent if you beat the two best teams in the conference in less than a week. Now we're all in a four way tie for first. We just gotta win our other games so they don't get up on us.

January 25, 2007 at 10:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

kevbo (anonymous) says...

I'll throw in my two cents to the discussion of sports writing. It's not an easy business, and it takes an intelligent, witty person to write well. I agree Woodling was great. I thought Bob Hentzen from the TCJ was just as good or better. I have yet to see any local writers match the quality of their columns, but I think Keeg does a fairly good job.

Though he can be smug at times, I think he is good at objectivity, yet taking a position at the right time. I don't agree with most of his positions (Case will be a key player by March?), but I like his style for the most part. He is definitely better than any writers in the area (save Bedore, who I think also does a good job).

That all being said, I think his ratings of the players after the game are ridiculous and should go. But...that's just my opinion.

January 25, 2007 at 11:11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

ebbenji (Eric Beightel) says...

I'm not a sports writer but I sure as hell am a consumer of sports journalism. In that regard I have every right to criticize and critique. If you put the product out for public consumption, you open yourself up for criticism. That being said, Mayer needs to hang it up and ride off into the sunset. The sooner the better. His articles are no longer relevant and the game has passed him by. I actually become angry when I read his articles because he just has no concept of the modern sports world - yet I continue to do it because I actually enjoy getting all worked up over him...
Woodling - piss poor. A columnist should express an opinion, not regurgitate soundbites. Not a fan.
Keegan - better than we've had for some time, seems to be settling into his niche.
Wood - as long as he sticks to football, I'm fine with him. Give him an Olympic sport - where the true student athletes toil, then the true colors come out (and they aren't pretty). Whatever, he's a tool.
Bedore - big fan, always have been.

I'm hung over and grumpy. Forgive me...or not.

January 25, 2007 at 11:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jross1972 (Joe Ross) says...

fair is fair ebbenji...

you say if one puts a product out they open themselves to criticism. alright.

but in evaluating criticism, one must consider the source, and that is equally fair to say. a critic of sports journalism with little background in either sports or journalism is not a critic who should be taken as seriously as someone who has expertise in either of these arenas.

fair is fair...

January 25, 2007 at 12:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

ebbenji (Eric Beightel) says...

Okay, I'll bite.

When you are critiquing any product - food, cinema, sports journalism, etc. you are expressing an opinion on how that particular product made you feel...relaying your impressions for others to observe. It has been my experience that those who write reviews for many of such media are snobbish crackpots who write about things that the common consumer either doesn't "appreciate" or doesn't care about.

I think reviews would be more effective and substantially more rewarding if they were written by the "everyman" who eats a lot, watches a sh*t ton of movies or reads sports columns day in and day out. I fall into the latter category and was just offering sharing my thoughts. I read espn, cbs, SportsIllustrated, KC Star, Washington Post, cnn & msnbc daily. Fair to compare the LJW to those sources, perhaps not but at least I have a benchmark.

Look, if you want a journalism professor to post on here about how the story moves and how it doesn't bring the reader to a desired end-point, fine. I'd rather just say that the column sucks and get on with it.

An honest review from a consumers perspective is all that I'm offering. I don't care if you don't think I have the credentials to voice an opinion.

January 25, 2007 at 12:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Leprechaunking13 (anonymous) says...

I honestly don't know why anyone is trying to give keegan any credit towards knowing all about the game. Jross you act as if he could go coach this KU team himself, the man looks like he's never played any type of organized ball whatsoever. And I don't care how much of the game you watch, you are still only going to know as much about the game as everyone else that just watches it. The only difference with him is that he writes about the game, whoopty-do he's a basketball genius all of a sudden, right? NO, thats wrong!

January 25, 2007 at 12:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

JerkStore (anonymous) says...

I'll admit my first post was a bit like a guy in the bleachers, so let me try this a little more maturely.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am a baseball fan first and foremost and have read enough to know what's good. My mind closed to Keegan once he butchered the analysis of Mark McGwire's career and drew ridiculous and unsubstantiated conclusions.

I agree that the job is difficult. He must write 3-4 columns a week in a town hungry for one thing, and its a thing he knew little about before this year. That said, he writes columns that I COULD write, and I'm the idiot! That's the whole point. He had no reason to get on a plane, rent a car, and ride a horse or whatever to get to Waco if that's all he was going to come up with. It was nothing that I couldn't observe from my comfy couch. And this happens every column.

In my view, one not need to be an expert in order to critique something...Especially if its something they paid for.

January 25, 2007 at 1 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

ebbenji (Eric Beightel) says...

Jerkstore - Word!

While his basketball columns sometimes leave a little to be desired, I do enjoy his stand-offish nature regarding the football program. Many KU fans need a bit of a reality check when it comes to KU football and I think Keegan occaisionally provides that.

January 25, 2007 at 1:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jross1972 (Joe Ross) says...

I'll take three on...easy enough!

First off, ebbenji...

No one is asking for journalism professors to post on here unless you are. I reiterate and underscore my point that it is fair for you or anyone to criticize but it is also fair for others to give weight (or not) to the criticism you offer. On the one hand, no one--and least of all me--is attempting to abridge your right of free speech. On the other, Im saying (and if the shoe fits wear it) that while it is fair for you to open your mouth, it is fair for you to be labelled an "idiot" for remarks you make if at any time you deserve it. I personally would not shut you up even if I could for two reasons. First of all I champion free speech. Secondly, I believe that those who know very little demonstrate it more and more as they continue to speak. So by all means...

Continuing on, you mention your daily fare of sports digestibles is long and reputable; however, it is also fair to point out that it is so much easier to read an article and be critical of it (SO much easier) than it is to have the creativity to produce said article in the first instance. We're talking orders of magnitude here. Therefore if someone argues against what is written by a columnist, I will not take issue. I often take exception myself. But I tend to be more indignant when they attack a columnist's literary abilities on the whole, as was done, when and if they have no credentials whatsoever upon which to base a judgement.

Furthermore, the argument that you are qualified to be critical of an sports article because you read them frequently is akin to someone who watches the health channel attempting to excercise medical jurisprudence having neither a background in law nor in medicine. Oh wait. I forgot. They saw it on TV. Kinda like the commercials where the "doc" is operating on a patient and declares, "I'm not a doctor, but I DID stay at a Holiday Inn last night."

Few of us here, and I am all to eager to point out that this includes YOU, do not have the expertise to say if Keegan is a good writer or not (I have a sneaking suspicion that he's at least decent since he was hired to write for the premier program in NCAA basketball). All you can offer is whether or not you like his articles. I've found that some I do, and others I don't. So for all your huffing and puffing, this house isn't gonna blow down. The truth remains you have the right of speech but that does not necessarily mean there is value in what you say.

January 25, 2007 at 2:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jross1972 (Joe Ross) says...

JerkStore...

"I'll admit my first post was a bit like a guy in the bleachers, so let me try this a little more maturely."

Nothing wrong with guys in bleachers, but I prefer girls on trampolines. Credit, though, for giving perspective to your post.

"My mind closed to Keegan once he butchered the analysis of Mark McGwire's career and drew ridiculous and unsubstantiated conclusions."

I'm not familiar with the particular piece, but assuming the article was in fact ridiculous, it nonetheless remains that he is not necessarily ridiculous all the time, in which case a permanently closed mind to him would mean that at least on occasion you'd be clued out of a good perspective (even a broken clock is right twice a day).

"I agree that the job is difficult."

I don't know, but I'd imagine it takes more research that one might otherwise assume.

"He must write 3-4 columns a week in a town hungry for one thing, and its a thing he knew little about before this year. That said, he writes columns that I COULD write, and I'm the idiot! That's the whole point."

Humor me. write an article!!!

January 25, 2007 at 2:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

KUglow (anonymous) says...

Is it just me or is Wright a rich man's version of Bryant Nash? Man, I always cringed when Nash had the ball - he was just so gangly looking and you never knew what the heck he was going to do on the floor. I'm starting to do that with Wright unfortunately.

January 25, 2007 at 3:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jaybate (anonymous) says...

jross1972,

First, I would put most of your extended posts up against most of Keegan's stories (journalists don't call them articles, if I recall correctly) that I have read.

Second, Keegan has many hats. He's the sports editor, isn't he? To be fair to him, he probably does just toss many of his stories off as "net" bones before he turns out the lights and locks the doors. Let's hope so. I would hate to think these were the best he was capable of doing. I criticise his writing precisely because he is doing it professionally. Lots of overworked journalists have, over the years, found formats that prevent them from looking utterly awful. Three dot journalism was created to handle fragmented material and journalist's who couldn't string alot of paragraphs into a seamless logic at deadline. Keegan can find a format to do the same. Its not beyond him and mildly insulting to readers that he thinks readers are so dimly lit that they WON'T be insulted by some of his efforts. I like an athlete to do the best he can every time out, knowing he won't be great every time, but that he can at least achieve some respectable minimum standard. I expect the same out of a journalist. I expect the same out of you and me. I even expect the same out of Lebowski. :-)

Third, Gary Bedore is a VERY competant beat writer. He is the type of guy that you rightly refer to with respect. Bedore is someone who can grind it out like hamburger everyday without becoming completely boring. He never gets very exciting either, but he never gets utterly boring. He's like a dependable glass that holds your favorite highball. You like it, but its not the glass you're looking forward to as much as what's in it.

January 25, 2007 at 3:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jaybate (anonymous) says...

Bedore never puts himself between the Jayhawks and the reader. He's a conduit, not a critical filter, at least overtly. Taking this approach makes him seem rather bland and like he's not trying very hard; that effortlessness actually requires some hard work at craft. Plain, unadorned writing that doesn't hype you with adjectives and opinions is tough to keep interesting. Regarding the occasional blandness of Bedore, well, people used to think Max Falkenstein was bland and did nothing. Not so. He worked at being an ideal version of an average KU fan, until he was an ideal conduit for KU basketball, and until he was almost as invisible as the coaxial cable that brought you the games. Bedore is the same in print. We don't get to hear much about what Gary thinks, likes or dislikes, unless it is absolutely necessary to state to let the story of KU basketball get through. Mostly the way you get an idea about what he thinks, or feels, is by what he leaves in and what he leaves out. Even when he plays the answer man he favors answers in the quantifiable, rather than in the opinion realm. Does any of this make him stand out? No, Bedore is the kind of guy no one gets gooey about until he finishes a long career (if his bosses let him have one); then we realize how much we enjoyed him communicating the game to us with a minimum of filtering. I personally prefer more of the person in the reporting, but I understand and respect how tough what Bedore is trying to do is.

January 25, 2007 at 3:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jaybate (anonymous) says...

Fourth, part of the reason Keegan takes so much flack is that he injects himself quite alot--I guess always since he's trying to write commentary--but often not in very tightly reasoned ways; this runs counter to what readers have become accustomed to with Bedore. I suspect readers the last several years probably often just ignored Mayer and Woodling and read Bedore, so he has sort of come to fill a double role of beat reporter AND commentator that makes Keegan's commentary make create even more dissonance than it othewise might. Regardless, Bedore may be invisible, but the story flows logically and rather seamlessly from beginning, through middle, to end. Once cannot say the same with a straight face about at least half of Keegan's stories. Having said this, though, I think Keegan is right to try to create a complementary alternative to Bedore's human conduit approach. If any medium has room (and need) for different narrative approaches, its this format. But I think Keegan either lacks the time, or perhaps (but very unlikely) the talent to do it.

Regarding your challenge for some blog poster to try to write everyday about the Hawks to see if he can do it, its a good idea in one aspect, but not in another. First, the good aspect: most any of us would probably love to give it a try, simply because it would be fun to write about what we love and to have an audience. Now for the bad aspect: its never wise to work for free. If the LJW will pay some per story fee, then it would be a great marketing gimmick AND a healthy experience for the guy doing the writing.

January 25, 2007 at 3:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

ebbenji (Eric Beightel) says...

It would appear that jross has a bur in his britches. Dude, I like Keegan. It's Mayer, Woodling and Wood that I have the problem with (Wood from his days at the UDK mostly, nothing recent).

You've expended a vast amount of energy to simply say - "I don't value your opinion." You've also wasted a lot of words dancing around calling me an idiot. Not entirely sure who pissed in your corn flakes but I don't care either.

You seem to want to impeach everyone who posts a critical opinion - which is your right. I wonder though, if you feel the urge to have everyone prove their worth as writers or critics, why you bother to read the messages in the first place. You clearly don't value anyone's opinion but your own.

January 25, 2007 at 3:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Andini (anonymous) says...

bring back andrew hartsock.

i know he's basically a behinds the scene gouy now but when he was writing a column he made me chuckle pretty much every time.

enough said.

January 25, 2007 at 3:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jross1972 (Joe Ross) says...

jaybate...

here, finally. a man I can agree to disagree with! At least I can say for your posts that there is something substantive, and the traces of reason strewn about the lines! Ive read your entire analysis and, while I certainly don't have the time to address it point-by-point, suffice it to say that I happen to agree with most of what you write (I'd still love to see JerkStore write a "story").

In JerkStore's defense--because I am a reasonable man, after all--my response was "probably" overboard. Okay..."definitely" does the sentiment more justice. However, when I questioned myself as to why my own feelings had so much gravity to them, I realized I was having a visceral reaction to the writers at the LJW taking a beating by nitwits and numbskulls who have no idea about that which they are talking and I've grown weary of the same regurgitated drivel column-in and column-out. In my opinion the LJW does, in fact, have the best forum in which to discuss hoops et. al. with "some of the best" articles to prompt discussion with. In that sense, it's not unlike America as a whole: it's far from perfect but still the best place to be by FAR! To be very honest, I just needed to have a catharsis.

Perhaps I should be more tolerant. But then again maybe not. I see far more criticism of the LJW than praise for it, and that finds its way under my epidermis more frequently than I care to admit.

January 25, 2007 at 4:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jross1972 (Joe Ross) says...

ebbenji...

I knew you'd prove yourself to be wrong if you just kept on speaking!

Thank you for enunciating exactly how meandering your stream of consciousness really is! Again, thank you. Perhaps you should dig up prior posts of mine to see if I value others' opinions. As far as "impeaching" those with contrary opinions, you could not be more wrong. I often comment on how insightful or interesting another's perspective is, whether I agree with it or not. What appears to hurt your feelings more than anything else in particular is the fact that I find your posts neither insightful nor interesting, and if that's a problem for you I can only be apologetic.

Nonetheless, I did not call you an idiot. If I would have, believe me, it would have been done so in no uncertain terms! I don't mince words.

January 25, 2007 at 4:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

JayhawkPhil (anonymous) says...

jross, you're usually the voice of reason on these little forays back and forth but I think ebbenji pulled your chain a little to hard on this.
That being said, I very much enjoy Keegan. I don't always agree with him either but he is at least objective and therefore more insightful than any other writer on the JW. Woodling can write a witty story and Gary Bedore is good at digging up facts. Mayer is, was and always will be a jerk.

January 25, 2007 at 9:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )